2020 QCCQ 6621, 2020 QCCQ 6621

Assimakopoulos c. Kiriakopoulos 2020 QCCQ 6621 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF SAINT-FRANÇOIS TOWN OF SHERBROOKE Civil Division No: 450-32-700873-193 DATE: October 22, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE SOPHIE LAPIERRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Panos ASSIMAKOPOULOS and Saran CRYSTAL Plaintiffs v.

George KIRIAKOPOULOS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiffs claim $15,000 from Defendant who allegedly broke into their apartment and stole their belongings. They say their belongings were worth more than $15,000. They also allege they had to temporarily move out elsewhere because they were afraid of Defendant. They ask for the reimbursement of the rent they paid for the new apartment. Finally, they claim that Defendant damaged a door. [ 2 ] Defendant is absent at the hearing.

ISSUE [ 3 ] Did Plaintiffs offer sufficient proof to support their claim? ANALYSIS 1- The law [ 4 ] Even if the case proceeds by default, Plaintiffs still need to prove the relevant facts to support their claim. [ 5 ]

Section 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec states : 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. [ 6 ] Furthermore, the proof needs to be sufficient as provided by

section 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec : 2804. Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. [ 7 ] Such proof must be clear, precise, credible, and complete as the Supreme Court wrote in F.H. v McDougall [1] : [45] […] There is only one legal rule and that is that in all cases, evidence must be scrutinized with care by the trial judge. [46] Similarly, evidence must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test.

But again, there is no objective standard to measure sufficiency. In serious cases, like the present, judges may be faced with evidence of events that are alleged to have occurred many years before, where there is little other evidence than that of the plaintiff and defendant. As difficult as the task may be, the judge must make a decision. If a responsible judge finds for the plaintiff, it must be accepted that the evidence was sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to that judge that the plaintiff

satisfied the balance of probabilities test. [ 8 ] Defendant’s liability lies on

section 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec : 1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature.

He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. [ 9 ] Plaintiffs must prove fault, damages and causation between these two elements. If one of those three elements is missing, liability cannot be ascertained. 2- The evidence [ 10 ] The parties share a long history of conflict following the acquisition of an immovable in Danville in 2014. [ 11 ] Mr.

Assimakopoulos explains that Defendant let drug dealers have access to the building, that he rand sacked the place, and assaulted the Plaintiffs. [ 12 ] On October 6 th 2016, Defendant allegedly broke into Plaintiffs’ apartment while they were gone. Mr. Assimakopoulos testifies that when they came back, the apartment was bare and everything was gone. [ 13 ] Plaintiffs’ testimony about this event is confuse, unclear and equivalent to assumptions rather than facts.

Particularly, they assume the theft was Defendant’s doing. [ 14 ] At the hearing and with the Court’s permission, Plaintiffs added to their exhibits a letter from Defendant in which he states that it is Mr. Carlos François who stole Plaintiff’s belongings on October 6th [2] . Mr. Assimakipoulos testifies that it is false, without any explanation whatsoever. [ 15 ] In a letter of demand to Defendant [3] , Plaintiffs wrote that the theft occurred on March 6 th 2016 rather than on October 6 th .

They did not explain this discrepancy. [ 16 ] In another document [4] , Plaintiffs pretended that their belongings were again stolen between July 2 nd and July 23 th of 2019. This new event opens many questions, for example which goods were replaced if any, and for how much. Questioned by the Court regarding replacement of the stolen goods, Mr. Assimokopoulos was vague and elusive. [ 17 ] Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not submit any proof to establish which goods were stolen, how much they were worth or how much Plaintiffs paid to replace some of them. Plaintiffs did not even make a list of what was stolen.

At the Court’s invitation, Mrs. Crystal enumerated a few items they had in the apartment but it remained general. Based on her testimony, the Court cannot find enough evidence to even decide on a minimum quantum of the loss. [ 18 ] As for the damaged door, again, Plaintiffs’ testimony is blur and minimal. [ 19 ] The Court examined a picture of a red truck parked near a door [5] , without any proof to connect that truck to Defendant.

It is also impossible to see if the damage was the result of a contact with the truck or not. [ 20 ] Plaintiffs don’t submit any proof of the cost to repair the door. [ 21 ] Finally, the Court does not find any sufficient proof to support the claim for the rent paid in Montreal and the necessity to incur this expense.

It seems that Plaintiffs were afraid of Defendant but there is not any credible and reliable evidence to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. [ 22 ] Plaintiffs’ statements to the police, a few pages of a lease and doubtful receipts are not enough for the Court to conclude in favor of Plaintiffs. [ 23 ] Considering the insufficiency of the proof, the Court must dismiss the demand. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DISMISSES the Plaintiffs’ action against the Defendant; [ 25 ] The whole without judicial costs. __________________________________ SOPHIE LAPIERRE, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: October 13, 2020